This is a politically motivated act of espionage, an act of war, designed to harm our intelligence capabilities, while we're at war, by a citizen of another country.

What the hell are we waiting for?

What would we do if Canada invaded? Would we try to arrest and prosecute a division of Canadian infantry?

Is this because we have some high-minded idea that assassination of one specific individual is morally wrong? That's idiotic. This shit-bag will cause the deaths of thousands. He's already admitted that an earlier leak of his probably caused the deaths of thousands of Africans -- but he defended himself by saying that they don't have a very long life expectancy anyway.

Do you really want to go down the road of defending, say, The New York Times, Garage? The same New York Times that wouldn't print the Climategate documents because they were both supposed to be confidential and had been obtained illegally?

It sounds like the theory on which he is being charged is that the women's consent was fraudulently obtained (by a representation that he would be using a condom when he either didn't intend to or intended to cut a hole in it first). The essential claim is that the fraud voids the prior consent. I haven't seen any allegation that he forcibly overpowered the women into non-consensual sex.

It's a tricky legal theory. Normally a person cannot claim to have been defrauded if she was in a position to determine the allegedly misrepresented facts. The reason is that, in those circumstances, the element of reasonable reliance cannot be established.

Perhaps Swedish law takes a different view of fraud or of the showing needed to void a prior consent. But is a charge that Assange obtained his partners' consent to sex on false pretenses the best they can come up with against this guy even in Sweden? Is a 'false pretenses' theory of rape really in anyone's interest? Is a claim that "I'll respect you in the morning" a sufficient predicate for rape-by-false-pretenses?

Actually we have less reason to kill him than say, the President of Yemen or the King whatshisname in SA. The irony is that if he falls victim to a 'tragic accident' we're going to take the blame regardless.

Now that he is purportedly dying, one would think he would want to gild his legacy a bit, but I guess he is so wedded to his own view of himself as a brave heretic he is compelled to go all the way, flaunting his continuing acts of self-disgrace as evidence of his integrity.

Yes, given how wantonly and heedlessly we torture and murder human beings by the thousands, and given Obama's claims that he may murder any person anywhere, even American citizens, bypassing due process entirely, I'm rather shocked as well that we haven't murdered Mr. Assange.

But, even the Soviet Union held show trials to legitimize their tyranny. I suppose it would be bad form for us to simply defenestrate Mr. Assange, what with so much attention on him at this time and all.

While I'm shocked we haven't murdered Mr. Assange, I'm just repulsed by the enthusiastic calls for his murder by so many Americans, especially among those in the media, whose vigorous participation in this cheerleading for murder reveals for all to see that our journalistic class, with few exceptions, are servile to power, lackeys and minions nearly one and all, a cohort of Quislings.

Ha! ha! Drudgery scores again with a phallic Big Ben above the headline.

Assange's remand is just more Kabuki, unless the Brits lodge a charge against him under the Official Secrets Act for his most recent leak. I highly doubt #10 would welcome the resulting global derision and media feeding frenzy.

Upon reading Brit and European papers, it appears that Assange assumed, or most probably, was advised, that he would be allowed bail, and after refusing extradition to Sweden would remain in the UK to carry on as usual while public pressure was applied in Sweden.(which ironically, is what would have transpired in the US).

I'm sure he's not a happy camper at the moment as the UK detention system is harsh.

While I'm shocked we haven't murdered Mr. Assange, I'm just repulsed by the enthusiastic calls for his murder by so many Americans

Correct me if I am wrong but I recall a few threads ago when it was suggested that if his leaks resulted in the deaths of innocents, you stated those deaths would not necessarily discredit him leaking the information.

"The latest revelation to emerge from the Wikileaks suggests Iranian President Ahmadinejad was"slapped" in the face by Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari, for taking a "liberal" attitude towards dealing with opposition protests."

Assange has much more to fear than the opinions of American blog commenters.

Assange is playing a very dangerous game this time around. The US is neutered by its own laws, but Ahmadinejad is another matter. He could call for a fatwa on Assange and assuredly a radical Islamic group or Imam seeking notoriety would oblige. I rather doubt the Brits would protect Assange as they have Rushdie.

You can rail against the perceived evils of the US and the right, but people like Assange who is as guilty of politically motivated murder as you claim is the US, always get their comeuppance; always.

Not overly impressed by the revelations of his leaks other than making some in the current administration look like fools and some of our allies less than honorable. No surprises there. I'm sure that once he starts disclosing information about the Russians or Israel, they'll take care of him. Unfortunately, he will be a martyr to his supporters.

Assange has much more to fear than the opinions of American blog commenters

Indeed and I said pretty much the same thing upthread. Thus far all the State Dept. leaks have done is pretty much confirm what anyone who pays attention to international affairs already suspected all along. Like I said, its quite possible someone will go after him but it won't be the US. Not that will prevent the usual suspects for blaming us anyway.

Apparently the crime he committed in Sweden was because he continued to have sex with a woman after the condom broke. What's sort of funny is that one of the women in the case against him is such a far left radical that she once wrote a treatise on how to take revenge against men and was once thrown out of Cuba for subversive activities.

"Correct me if I am wrong but I recall a few threads ago when it was suggested that if his leaks resulted in the deaths of innocents, you stated those deaths would not necessarily discredit him leaking the information."

I was asked what my opinion would be if that were to happen, and if I recall correctly, I said it would depend on circumstances, or we would have to see what happened, or something to that effect...essentially..."I don't know," but, that it wouldn't necessarily discredit the release of the documents...and it wouldn't.

To say otherwise would be to say that anyone harmed anyhwere in the world as the result of news reporting that might have made certain parties desire to seek retaliation against other parties is therefore to be condemned.

The reality is that Wikileaks has asked the U.S. for guidance in what names should be redacted to protect innocents, and the U.S. has refused to assist. Wikileaks has redacted names with the advice of other parties, and is only releasing documents in small increments. They are trying to be responsible and so far there is no evidence or claim that anyone anywhere has been harmed or threatened as a result of the Wikileaks publications.

On the other hand, in our terror wars abroad, we have killed or caused to be killed many thousands of mostly noncombatant residents of lands we have invaded, and we have destroyed their social and civic infrastructures, rendered millions homeless, thrown others into prisons to be tortured and held without recourse to legal assistance. Where are the crocodile tears for those many many lives and families ruined?